Flat v's Round : The G/F opinion

My g/f has occasionaly prompted questions about Hi-Fi and how it has affected the music I listen to and the music I buy. So, a long conversion ensued and we reached the subject of choosing equipment. The invetable "Flat v's Round" subject reared it's [ugly ?] head and I went through the usual answers of "it's all about the music" v's "accurate reproduction" and mentioning the benefits of both polarised opinions.

She actually seemed genuinly interested (she loves her music too) and she asked which side I fall on and I [honestly] said "Somewhere in between.".

So I pitched her the question "So what do you think I am [Flat or Round] ?"

And without even breaking stride stated.....

"A nerd !"

Closely followed by a little chortle .

I'll get me coat .

 

takes one to know one.....
cheers




julian

 

:lol:

When shopping about before a dealer mentioned (perhaps not with flat/round terms), some things which my girlfriend later asked me what he was on about. Her reaction was pretty similar. She did however say "Isn't the whole point of getting it accurate, so that it can make it MOre musical".

MO

 

Yeah, but some of the most tonally accurate systems also seem to be the most boring to listen to, so that doesn't always follow...

 

The word "accurate" is unfortunately getting badly misused in hifi circles. By definition, if a system is accurate (that is, accurately reproducing the original sound) then it must be musical.

Or, to put it another way, a system that isn't musical can't have any pretensions to being accurate in the true sense of the word.

Michael.

 

I agree. Real music sounds musical, so if it sounds realistic then it sounds musical. I'm not sure if I understand what people mean by musical any more. The more I hear the more I am convinced its just another clouded hifi jargon term.

 

I'd question whether tonally acurate systems that are boring to listen to really are tonally accurate. Is it simply a case that something retrieves detail (is analytical) or plays music, conveys emotion etc? For me those two things are totally seperate things, with little to do with the tonality of a system.

 

Absolutely agree with the assertion that the term "musical" is indeed nothing more a piece of clouded h-fi jargon - nothing more than a subjective adjective.

Also, whether a component or system "conveys emotion" is entirely subjective, and doesn't correlate at all with with it's considered adept in being tonally accurate and/or detailed or not. In some types of music (especially accoustic) the emotion is expressed in the nuances of how the instrument(s) is played, hence requiring accurate retrieval of [subtle] details which hightens the emotionally connection. Other types of music require clean and consistant dipction of the rhythm and bass lines, and this is the emotional connection for that type of music. Most people (IMO/IME) tend to listen to the same aspects of music regardless of genre.

The dogged pursuit of those keen on PRaT and tune playing ability in hi-fi can be equally as anal as those who persue the more "round" aspects. Anal because you don't even get as much "precision" in a real live gig/concert situation IME. This has been brought home to me not just in accoustic/non-amplfied gigs, but also in situations where PAs and amplificaiton have been used - at certain venues I've been to even the PA combined with acoustics was so badly distorting the timing and tune playing aspects of the music that even just considered on those grounds my system at home was far superior. So just how accurate do you need to get, I'll admit it's different for the musicians on stage but hearing things from the audience's point of view from the PA and acoustics in the venue, it makes you wonder how much and what variety of live music some people do actually get out to hear - or do these people only go to the venues with the best PA rigs (as do some classical concert goers only sit in certain seats for the best acoustics). Surely most of us don't complain when we go to a live gig that things aren't "grooving" properly through faults which aren't direclty related to the musicians?

 

Me and my girlfriend (she's a self confessed nerd and says she loves me because I'm a nerd - so there's a meeting of minds) go to a lot of live gigs, 2 or 3 a month at least. Always amplified (that's the kind we like).

Hi fi terms - PRaT, soundstage, air, musicality, boogie factor, yaddayaddayadda - meaningless in the context of a real gig. They are loud and distorted generally speaking and if they sounded like hifi ... I wouldn't go and if my hifi sounded "real" like a real gig I'd get rid of it or my neighbours would get rid of me.

 

this is my whole problem with the 'accurate reproduction' and comparison with live events arguments. for me live events are a totally different type of entertainment from listening to my hi-fi. a live event is about having fun from socialising, getting drunk, sweating, listening to music and dodgy fast food. hi-fi is about listening only. of course there are those that take their concert going and try to recreate it using their hi-fi but imho this is a futile task not least because you have clotheared engineers between you and the origional when listening to hi-fi. i'd rather just have a sound i enjoy at home and savour each activity as similar but distinclty different things.
cheers


julian

 

Absolutely. That's the usual standard of behaviour in any classical concert. :Quad:

The problem is that most hi-fi enthusiasts almost never listen to acoustic music. That should be the standard.

And I agree absolutely with Michael here: to be musical a system must be accurate, at least in the dimensions you favour. These can be tonal accuracy, attack precision, and so forth.

I once used an analogy to make myself understood over this: in appraising a girl's beauty, you may favour the face, the legs, the poise, the bosom, the overall silhouette, and even the hands and feet.

Likewise, in music, you may favour many different things. When a system is accurately reproducing the things you favour - say timbre - you will like it. It does not mean other people find it accurate or even likeable.

But anyway, if hifi must be rated as a reproducer of sound, surely the only way is to compare it with what is meant to be reproduced in the first place.

 

One easy way to improve the sound of a live gig (or a club's PA) - bogroll in the ears; it removes the Naim-esque brightly lit mids (ie, the bit that causes your ears to give up after about 10 minutes in a live gig) and makes the mids/bass/treble sound waaaay more balanced. Even really bad PAs can be improved by this - and believe it or not - you can then hear each other if you need to talk Strange but true...

The problem is that, at least in many cases (including mine), people find classical/acoustic hard to "get" due to a lack of beat. I like some stuff like "thrash classical" like Grieg's "In the hall of the mountain king" or really funky stuff like Incantation's "Cachapaya" but a lot of acoustic music bores me silly - so that's my excuse for not listening. I know a lot of people who feel the same as this - right or wrong...

Personally my first two attributes are nose and voice (ok so it sounds weird, but what would be the first two things YOU'D notice if you had bad sight and don't ritualistically stare down a woman's top (unlike >99.9% of the rest of the male population!) when talking to a female... Silhouettes are cool though - and hands definitely can be really beautiful - Jack Dawson (Titanic) wasn't that weird for thinking that

:duck:

 

Seems like to me that you're almost saying that any acoustic music has to necessarily be "classical" music, OK you're not but I'm sure there seems to be some kind of association in your mind's pigeon holing system. "Incantation" is folk/world/ethnic music, there's plenty of similar stuff you could get into in a similar vein that has drums/percussion and catchy rhythms, afterall a lot of "folk" music is "dance music" at least to that culture or time.

 

rds,
this is probably the root of my problem with classical music, i've never seen a bunch of people having a good time at any of the (very few) classical event's i've been to. the exceptions would have to be the last night at the proms and some of the outdoor events where you do get the odd pissed up hooray. just a personal thing.
as henry says accoustic music need not be classical music. one of my all time favorite bands was a small local group in texas called fabu, 2 girls, a guy, 2 playing accousic guitar and 1 singing occasionally a friend on double bass or drums. their version of amazing grace was ...er.. amazing. certainly for female vocals and accoustic guitar the memory of this band playuing is one of my yardsticks. however nothing i've ever heard from mono tape recorders to 100k kit at jj's could touch the live event, purely because when i'm listening at home, i'm de facto NOT sat in a mexican resaraunt, with a michaelob, some nachos surrounded by mates listening to marvelous live music. 2 totally different things.
cheers


julian

 

RdS said "accoustic music" not "classical music". Whilst 95% of classical music is accoustic there's a lot of accoustic music that isn't classical.

Accoustic music should be the standard for hifi as RdS says.

Julian, as regards "having a good time" it all depends what you mean. When I go to classical concerts I'm not bopping about with a beer in my hand but just because I'm sitting pensively in my chair doesn't mean I'm not having a good time. Classical music concerts are enjoyed in a different way, perhaps a more cerebral way than other types of music.

Michael.

 

michael,
just for the sake of argument it could be said that accoustic music is more at the mercy of the engineer and mixing desk and therefore comparing a live concert that you attend and the commercial recording of the same concert is futile. in this context 100% synthetic music is truer to the actual event.

i totally agree that different people enjoy different things, getting dj'd up and listening to 4 hours of wailing in a language i don;t understand isn't my idea of fun but others love it. similarly, jumping around a dark sweaty club, with paper towels poking out of your ears, drinking untill you bleed is probably not everyone's idea of a good time either.

cheers


julian

 

Hi Dom,

Thanks for the advice. I have been suffering more and more from coming out of gigs with my hearing a bit wrecked and even though it recovers have been worrying about permanent damage So have recently invested in some ear plugs. Haven't used em yet, but haven't been out gigging since before Christmas. I had always assumed it would take away from the experience, but from what you say, it may actually improve it some.

Thanks

 

In Switzerland, rock concert organisers actually distribute them to attenders.

I was interested to see that Basel's Top Secret Drum Corps, who had such a triumphant reception at the 2003 Edinburgh Tattoo, all wear them - I guess the sound of 12 snare drums at close range must be pretty wearing.

 

Oh I don't know Julian, it probably would be if they tried it.

This whole arguement is a waste of valuable bandwidth IMHO. A vionin should sound like a violin, a piano like a piano, and a fender strat like a fender strat. If it doesn't, the blame will lie either with a) the recording engineer, or b) poor hifi components. If it never sounds right, it is likely to be the latter. And no matter how much the sheep bleat, that means it ain't musical.

 

Heehee, true. My idea of a good time though One day I'll get too old for this malarchy, but only once I'm bedridden.